Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers: Difference between revisions

Moved to Archive 1:

Disambiguation discussion (From Stan Sheb's talk page)
Etiquette for updating project
Votes for deletion - Trasvasement
Proposed Template from Dutch Wikipedia

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers/Naming

all naming discussions are movved there. Includes Requested moves.

Project Sample

Armlet

River_Vuoksi, the most famous unknown River ;-) starts with armlet, I wikified it, because I wanted to find out what it is - but there is no article. Can some of the river-experts help? best regards Tobias Conradi 22:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I beleive this should be branch, not armlet. Armlet is used as a synonym for inlet when describing seas and fjords. Also I see that the southern "branch" is called River Burnaja which I don't think the article mentions. Rmhermen 13:51, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I just redirected Armlet to Arm ring, since all other links to it were about jewellery. I second the "branch" change, and will do it now. -AndyBQ 06:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A source

Whilst trying to help "fill in the reds" at Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics, I noticed that there was quite a few rivers still to do... I start extracting out the rivers (have done the first 11 pages worth so far) and listing them at User:Pcb21#rivers... so if you are looking for something to do... there is at least 100 hundred articles to write right there! THanks Pcb21| Pete 11:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of rivers in another major encyclopedia not in Wikipedia

Pcb21| Pete 22:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breadth: lots of rivers

Hello, all. Just found this project. There is some good stuff here regarding the depth side of things: how to write a good, comprehensive article on a river. But lately I've been wondering about the breadth side: listing lots of rivers. (By the way, if this has been discussed before somewhere, please point me to that discussion. Thanks.)

Wikipedia is eventually supposed to have an article on anything "noteworthy". And, for flowing bodies of water, I would say that a good rule of thumb for whether something is noteworthy enough is whether the locals call it a "river" (or the equivalent word in whatever language they use). In short, Wikipedia ought to have an article on every river in the world.

Of course, to start with, the vast majority of these articles would contain very little information. But what would make it all worthwhile would be the lists & categories tying everything together. Therefore, along with the guidelines for an article about a river, how about also putting together standards for regional lists of rivers (by watershed & alphabetical), categories, etc. Also a brief guideline about what the minimal article on a river ought to look like (I figure name, general location, stub tag, categories, along with an associated entry in whatever relevant list articles there may be).

Now, with only six people listed as project participants (seven if I sign up), this is a ridiculously large job. But we can dream, can't we? More practically, we can also write bots to lighten the workload, and we can put together standards for those who follow.

Thoughts?

— Nowhither 16:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. The hundred-odd red links in the list above are unquestionably noteworthy enough for WP to get us started ;-). Pcb21| Pete 18:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on European rivers. There is a good list by watershed at List of rivers of Europe. As it was getting enormous, I removed rivers that are too insignificant (see the talk page), criterium length under 100 km. There are lists of rivers for several European countries as well, most of them by watershed and alphabetic. An alphabetical list of rivers of Europe would be nice as well, that doesn't exist yet.

I agree with your minimal-contents-proposal. General location should include what river, sea, ocean or lake it flows into. Markussep 19:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what needs to be done? This project should probably be better known, and if lots of rivers are to written about, there needs to be some organization. I figured we should put together a River-stub template, which could include an invitation to join this project. However, it seems a similar tempate was recently deleted, so that's probably not a good idea. More generally, the overall organization of geographical stuff on Wikipedia is national/regional; watersheds don't fit into such a scheme very well, so there might be some opposition to other ideas that would get rivers better organized. But I think the following can happen:

Design a box (like the one at the top of this page, or, better yet, this page) to be placed at the top of talk pages, pointing people to this project.
Put together standards for lists of rivers.
- The current de facto standard seems to be to have a list page & category listing rivers in a particular country, or province/state for larger countries. On the list page, rivers are given in alphabetical order, and in "tree" form, by watershed. If the lists are long, sometimes this information is split into more than one page.
- Do we all like this? I figure it's not too bad, but, as I said earlier, nations vs. watersheds often don't fit together very well.
Finish up a standard for a minimal river stub. How about:
- Name, general location, regional <sigh> stub tag, category, and IF KNOWN
- body of water it empties into.
- Something like, "The Blurg River is a river in Blurgland. It empties into the Big Blurg River at Blurgville." + stub tag & category.
- Also place into appropriate list(s).

— Nowhither 02:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We definitely need a river stub template at least, for those short articles like Choaspes. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geolinks-US-river

I was dissatisfied with using Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale for rivers for two main reasons (google maps often don't show water--click the second google maps link; for the "Source"--and you just had to pick a single random spot on the river), so I created a river-specific Template:Geolinks-US-river that can map both ends. I also tweaked the formatting a) to better support the two sets of maps, and b) because I didn't like some of the 'streetscale' formatting. Any comments/suggestions? I suspect the most likely area with room for improvement is the 'Mouth or other endpoint' and 'Source' labels. Waterguy 18:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox update

A proposal has arisen at Template talk:River to create a new infobox template to replace the current one from the Dutch Wikipedia. The current one, in the eyes of many (myself included), is inflexible and difficult to use and not consistent with most other infoboxes. Participants of this project are invited to participate in the discussion, as Wikipedia:Infobox notes that "if you want to redesign an Infobox, please take it up in the appropriate WikiProject". Thanks, Wikiacc (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who's been putting together a new template. Somehow I missed the fact that there's a whole WikiProkect for rivers; it's not listed in a couple of the obvious places. I don't think Jdorje, who's been helping with the template, knew about it either. At any rate, glad to know you're all here, please do drop by and chime in. Thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 21:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm eager to move rivers to the new template; I'd love to have more feedback before doing so, but I'm going to get started soon! The new structure is pretty flexible, so changes down the road will be easier than with the old template. Thanks much, —Papayoung ☯ 00:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and moved all of the rivers that were using {{River}} to {{Infobox_river}}, generating measurements in both metric and Imperial as I went. There are no more articles using the old template other than a couple of Sandboxes, so in a bit I'll mark it for deletion. That was really satisfying. —Papayoung ☯ 01:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:River

Template:River has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:River. Thank you.--Wikiacc (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of river names

A recent move from Weiße Elster to White Elster made me wonder whether we should translate the adjectives in names like this. I'm only talking about rivers that have no commonly used English name. Some more examples (I put the link to where the article is located now):

Schwarze Elster, Black Elster
Fränkische Saale, Franconian Saale
Tiroler Achen, Tyrolean Achen
Bolshaya Belaya River, Great Belaya River or Great White River
Oude IJssel, Old IJssel
Sèvre Nantaise, Nantes Sèvre
Sèvre Niortaise, Niort Sèvre
Westerschelde, Western Scheldt
Oosterschelde, Eastern Scheldt
Nieuwe Maas, New Meuse
Crişul Alb, White Criş or White Körös
Someşul Mare, Great Someş
Podkamennaya Tunguska, Stony Tunguska

I'd prefer not to translate them, but give the translation in the text. Thoughts? Markussep 13:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Weiße Elster and Fränkische Saale to their German names. Markussep 16:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- problem with translation of geographic features: if you go there the people won't understand you. On the other hand, it makes the english WP more english. This should probably be addressed in general not only rivers. undecided - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help request for Arkansas River (Talk), Kansas River (Talk), Marais des Cygnes River (Talk)

Hello, there is a very enthusiastic new user presently insisting on adding these rivers to various broad categories (Category:Human geography and Category:Biogeography), and is also adding an array of strange messages, numbers, etc., to the Kansas River article. I seem to be alone in the matter, so if anyone can help, I'd appreciate it. Thanks -- Malepheasant 08:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This project was launched during 1968 with the Cimarron River watershed.

The expansion of specific Kansas Rivers was inspired by adult lifelong learners who particpated in the ALL-WinWin Kansas Envrionmental Leadership Program (1999-2005).

See more USGS National Map Hydrology background: Talk:Kansas River/Biogeography
RJBurkhart 15:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense not about improving articles. Rmhermen 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of tributaries

On a whim, creating Kurrum, I categorized it in Category:Indus tributaries. Now before I create this category, I wanted to check here: How about grouping tributaries of major rivers in categories? Of course, this should remain at firstrestricted to major sea-going rivers, such as the Indus, Ganges, Rhine, Danube, Volga, Ob, Mississipi, Yangtze etc., but in principle, categories are perfect for reproducing hierarchical systems, so that there could be a full representation of the topology of the world's rivers in Wikipedia categories :) dab (ᛏ) 16:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Tributaries of the Mississippi River, Category:Tributaries of the Missouri River, Category:Tributaries of the Ohio River so I don't see any problem. It shouldn't be used to replace the text about the tributaries, however. Rmhermen 17:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good to know. it would be better to choose the a consistent title of Category:Tributaries of the Indus River, then. dab (ᛏ) 14:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on second thoughts, "X basin" categories seem to be doing the same job. Category:Rhine basin at least seems to render superfluous a Category:Tributaries of the Rhine. dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Category:Mississippi basin which serves as a parent for the three categories I mentioned before. The problem I see with this is that while "Tributaries of X" is explicit in what the category contains, "X basin" could include other subjects besides streams alone. Rmhermen 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:P-A. recently created several categories for tributaries, see for instance Category:Atlantic European basins and its subcategories. I don't think he made any subcategories for major tributaries (yet). I don't really see the added value above the existing lists of rivers (provided they give that kind of information, like the list of rivers of Europe), but well, it doesn't hurt anyone. Markussep 15:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landforms by country

Comments regarding a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories) that would make "in country" the naming convention for Landform by country categories (such as rivers by country categories) would be very appreciated prior to a cfru. Kurieeto 22:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing project visibility

Hello. I just found out about this project last week by typing in "Template:Infobox river" and suddenly finding that, to add to Wallkill River, which I created last summer. I wished I had known of this project then.

Then I wound up adding the infobox to the articles on four of the five major rivers of the Northeastern United States (all except the Potomac).

This project needs greater visibility. I created the WP:RIVERS shortcut. I am surprised that unlike the mountains and protected areas projects (among others), no one has bothered to create a messagebox for corresponding talk pages.

I volunteer to do so. Can anyone recommend a good river image to use? Daniel Case 17:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome a message box for the project. As for pictures, this one of the Hudson might work well. Malepheasant 18:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done ... see {{river}}. I chose a picture of the Columbia instead ... I wanted one that makes it clear it's a river and not a lake. Plus I feel using a pic of the Hudson would seem like regional boosterism on my part. Daniel Case 02:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now go and plant that on every river article's talk page. Daniel Case 02:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question, but before I plant this on every river talk page on my watchlist; is this a template you'd normally "subst:'? Or sans subst? Kuru ^talk 03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do that with all project templates, yes. Daniel Case 17:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that that image is clearly a river at the small resolution of the the template. I would suggest something like Image:Cuyahoga_River.jpg if it wasn't so dark. Rmhermen 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is better: Image:River gambia Niokolokoba National Park.gif. I think this would look better than the current one, clearly showing a meandering river. Rmhermen 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken archive

The "Archive 1" link at the top is now red. What happened to the archive? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 04:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 7 April 2006 Sceptre deleted "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Archive 1" (orphaned talk page)

Not sure how the orphan term was applied - seems to follow the naming convention an had at least one link to it. Will drop a message on his talk page. Kuru ^talk 12:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming: Multiple rivers with the same name

Re: Rivers in the USA: I would like to unify the methods for the naming of multiple rivers with the same name. Currently, several different methods are suggested. I suggest the following:

The first way to disambiguate should be to add a state qualifier: Jordan River (Utah).
When multiple rivers with the same name exist in the same state, the river should be identified as a tributary of another river with the name of the principal river acting as the qualifier: St. Joseph River (Maumee River). The word "tributary" should not be added as a qualifier.

Adopting these naming conventions would eliminate some other methods currently used, such as: River X (County A, State B), River X (Township A, County B, State C), or St. Joseph River (Maumee River tributary). If some consensus could be reached on unifying the naming of multiple rivers with the same name, either with the suggestions above or something else, perhaps we could update this article page accordingly. Gjs238 01:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing how your suggestion differs from the naming standard already described on the project page. Rmhermen 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a few days thinking perhaps it would be noticed, so I'll just cut & paste from my previous post.

"Adopting these naming conventions would eliminate some other methods currently used, such as: River X (County A, State B), River X (Township A, County B, State C), or St. Joseph River (Maumee River tributary)."

In other words, when two rivers of the same name exist in the same state, currently two naming conventions come into play. Some disambiguate by tributary, others delve into counties and other political subdivisions.

Also, some place the word 'tributary' in the disambiguation.

Would not a standardized approach be desirable? Gjs238 12:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO dab by destination waterbody is better than counties etc. Rivers are from physical geography, counties from human. In doubt, avoid mixing this two systems. Countries as dab may be treated different, as they are well known worldwide. But a physical geographer should may be not need to learn township names. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The practice you suggest is pretty much the current standard in most cases, especially for tributaries of bodies with a relatively high level of recognizability. But I think there are exceptions as well, usually with good reason. For example, with the Great Lakes, there may be any number of rivers with the same name that empty into the same lake, so some sort of geographical disambiguation is needed. Also, when dealing with tributaries of small bodies of water that are not well-known, it may be more intuitive to use a more recognizable feature for disambiguation. I think the preference should be for using the tributary method, but I think there should be room for common sense exceptions rather than trying for a universal, one-size-fits-all standard. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have ever seen River X (Township A, County B, State C) and would suggest that some simpler alternative could be adopted - also I don't think there is a naming standard which suggests this form. Rmhermen 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen the township used as the disambiguator in a river name either. I know of several using the county in the name (I may have been responsible for creating a few of them). older ≠ wiser 16:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming: Multiple political jurisdictions in the U.S.

Related to the above discussion, a user has politely proposed moving Cedar River (Iowa) to "Cedar River (Minnesota and Iowa)," because the river rises in Minnesota. (It flows for most of its length in Iowa, but does pass through Austin, which is a fairly important town in its region in southern Minnesota.) What is the preference in this case? For a few examples, we have these hyphenated disambiguators (not all of them good articles):

And these with slashes:

(Disclosure: I started the 2 "Little River" articles above with hyphens, and they were moved by another user to the "slash" format.) (Further disclosure: The article at "Big Sandy River (Kentucky-West Virginia)" was recently moved to "Big Sandy River (Ohio River tributary)," and I moved it to Big Sandy River (Ohio River) per the above discussion.)

If the "tributary" format were used, the above lists would be:

Chatooga River (Coosa River)
Montreal River (Lake Superior)
North River (Hudson River)
Pearl River (Gulf of Mexico)
Pigeon River (Lake Superior)
Pigeon River (French Broad River)
Red River (Cumberland River)
St. Croix River (Atlantic Ocean) or St. Croix River (Bay of Fundy)
St. Croix River (Mississippi River)
St. Marys River (Lake Huron)

--

Little River (Red River)
Little River (St. Francis River)
St. Marys River (Atlantic Ocean)

Which is better? I think the second list looks cleaner, and I think I'm coming around to Tobias Conradi's suggestion above that the "tributary" format might be worth considering as the generally preferred option for disambiguating -- because what we call the St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota) was a tributary of what we call the Mississippi River long before it was used to define the boundary between Minnesota and Wisconsin, and because the Mad River (California) went into the Pacific Ocean long before California existed; and because U.S. political subdivisions are well-represented on the Wikipedia whereas watershed networks are not. But I can also see where such an approach might be viewed as extreme in practice (and it would create its own disambiguation problems where streams of the same name entered the same body of water). Any thoughts? And, more simply, if Cedar River (Iowa) is to be moved, where should it go? To "Cedar River (Minnesota-Iowa)" or to "Cedar River (Iowa River)"? Or should it not be moved? Thanks -- Malepheasant 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I have never been a fan of the "Little River (St. Francis River)" format - how do I know (if I am The man on the Clapham omnibus) that this means the Little is a tributary of the S. Francis and not that St. Francis is an alternate name for the Little. I have moved a couple of rivers (which flowed close together) to "Y River (X River tributary)" which is think is more obvious in this respect. Rmhermen 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Maybe for X River (Y River) the word tributary should be added. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tributary naming convention is more workable. As an extreme example, look at "Pine Creek". A search at www.topozone.com reveals 18 Pine Creeks in Pennsylvania (PA), with three counties that have two Pine Creeks each and one county that has three of them. Arkansas and Arizona have similar Pine Creek issues, as do other states. We would have to go with county names if we chose political locators and then the possible issue of multiple counties arises (like multiple states above). What we have done so far is name the largest Pennsylvania Pine Creek's article Pine Creek (Pennsylvania) (as "Pine Creek (West Branch Susquehanna River Tributary)" or "Pine Creek (Potter - Tioga - Lycoming - Clinton Counties)" was too ungainly) and it is the largest 'creek' in the United States and best known Pine Creek in Pennsylvania. the others are named as tributaries. My $0.02 worth, Ruhrfisch 03:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Peer Review help

I would appreciate it very much if anyone could take a look at Larrys Creek, which is up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Larrys Creek. It does not have a list of tributaries yet. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 04:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moves

Move questions

shall "X reka" in Category:Rivers of Serbia be moved to "X River"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what to do with Göta älv? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say move them both. This is the English Wikipedia and those are by no means common terms in English. Although the local name can be included in the introductory sentence. Rmhermen 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (the redirects will still be there after the move if anyone is looking for reka or älv. Ruhrfisch 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Also agree. --Malepheasant 02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hi there! I was thinking about doing maps for the Category:Rivers of Argentina, and I wanthered if there's a standard for them regarding colours, topografy, etc. More importantly, I wanted to know if any of you knows a good way to do so (sources, programs, wites, etc) Thanks a lot, Mariano(t/c) 16:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For colors, etc. I try to follow Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. For sources - if you have GIS software you can go use [1] for the rivers and [2] for boundaries. If you don't have GIS try using the Online Map Creation at [3] and then cleaning up the map in a graphics program like Photoshop or GIMP. Kmusser 16:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, I've already gathered enough datafiles (E00, shapefile, etc). I really don't like the OCM map generator, so I tried to install some free software for map-creation. I'm curently testing GvSIG, which is not that bad, but still a little bit buggy and limited. I got the idea that ArcGIS is kind of the as good as it gets right now, but I haven't tried. Can you give me your oppinion on these two, JUMP GIS, and GRASS GIS?. Thanks a lot. Mariano(t/c) 09:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with ArcGIS is how expensive it is, I'm fortunate to have a copy from work. I've used GRASS GIS in the past and liked it, haven't heard anything about the others you mentioned. Kmusser 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I will settle with MapWindow GIS, wihch proved to be more stable than the rest. Problem is I can't open E00 files, nor grids, but you can't have it all!!

BTW, any more detailed source for rivers with dams ? Thanks a lot, Mariano(t/c) 13:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On dams, for the U.S. you can get them out of the National Atlas, but I don't know for Argentina - I don't know of any world data set that isn't copyrighted. Kmusser 13:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members

Can anybody join this group? I've never joined a WikiProject, but as a California based water resources engineer (presently I work on the Bay-Delta estuary for the government, but Oct. 1 I'll be joining the State's flood forecasting group), I have access to large amounts of information (including photos) on California rivers. MCalamari 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can join. The Wikiprojects mostly function to keep terminology and styles the same among large groups of articles. And to provide a pool of interested and knowledgeable persons to ask questions of when they arise. Rmhermen 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly looked at List of California rivers (I don't know how complete that is) and noticed there are a lot of articles started for California rivers. Hoewever randomly checking two found one (Big Pine Creek) using unit of acre-feet but no metric (or possibly more common "English" system) units and another (Sespe Creek) stating that it "...is one of the longest creeks untouched by dams or concrete channels." without stating how long the creek is or where it is one of the longest (longest in the world?, in California?) So obviously there is work to be done yet. Rmhermen 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

See the proposal to move Litani River to Litani River, Lebanon at Talk:Litani River. Rmhermen 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Rivers added to project

I'm not signing on as a participant; too much already on the boil; but when I saw the {{Rivers}} tag on the Talk:Okanogan River page I went at the BC Rivers Category and added it throughout, where it wasn't placed already. Just wanted to note that the tag has been placed on some major creeks, which have articles, and it's worth understanding for non-BCers reviewing any of these pages that many creeks in BC are much larger than "named rivers"; and there will be more to come. Also I'd already used the rule-of-distance in naming the Okanogan River article, as most of the length, especially the naturally-flowing length, of that river, is in the US and so the US spelling seemed a propos; even though the name for the valley, Okanagan, is a major geographic name/region in BC. I also amended the Pend Oreille River article to give the BC/Canadian spelling for its brief stretch there, "Pend d'Oreille River"; and somewhere in there made an edit-comment that the official mapped name of the Clark Fork is exactly that, NOT "Clark Fork River"; "Fork" turns up here and there for "river" in the same way that "creek" does, y'see. But especially in that case (the Snake River used to be the Lewis Fork or something like that, as I recall); Skookum1 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 401: / Line 401: @@
 ==Proposed move==
 See the proposal to move [[Litani River]] to Litani River, Lebanon at [[Talk:Litani River]]. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
+== British Columbia Rivers added to project ==
+I'm not signing on as a participant; too much already on the boil; but when I saw the <nowiki>{{Rivers}}</nowiki> tag on the [[Talk:Okanogan River]] page I went at the BC Rivers Category and added it throughout, where it wasn't placed already.  Just wanted to note that the tag has been placed on some major creeks, which have articles, and it's worth understanding for non-BCers reviewing any of these pages that many creeks in BC are much larger than "named rivers"; and there will be more to come.  Also I'd already used the rule-of-distance in naming the [[Okanogan River]] article, as most of the length, especially the naturally-flowing length, of that river, is in the US and so the US spelling seemed ''a propos''; even though the name for the valley, [[Okanagan]], is a major geographic name/region in BC.  I also amended the [[Pend Oreille River]] article to give the BC/Canadian spelling for its brief stretch there, "Pend d'Oreille River"; and somewhere in there made an edit-comment that the official mapped name of the Clark Fork is exactly that, NOT "[[Clark Fork River]]"; "Fork" turns up here and there for "river" in the same way that "creek" does, y'see.  But especially in that case (the Snake River used to be the Lewis Fork or something like that, as I recall); [[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Eisspeedway